tv [untitled] September 6, 2010 8:30pm-9:00pm PST
of time that staff has spent on this. i would be happy to answer any questions you have. >> good morning. i am the previous owner. first and foremost, i want to address the last statement. the matter but the decision is, i will take care of it. i do not want to transfer to the new owners. that was part of the agreement, this would be cleared up. any payments that are incurred, i've will take care of. my biggest concern is the receiving of information from the offices. yes, i have no disagreement in regards to the timeline, and i did apply -- we came in to request to keep the deck. we were given notifications that certain things needed to be done to the deck.
i was under the impression, with architect at the time, that we were in good standing. i realized in 2004 when the next notice came that that was not the case. in 2009, i made the decision to sell the house. in doing so, i was able to get the money to make all of the changes that were needed. my biggest concern right now is the question of manpower hours, all of this would not have had to happen if i had got notification. i find it interesting that i never notification about the hearing. there was something posted on the home but a certified letter seemed to find its way to my new address telling me what the decision of the hearing was. i do not know why i did not get
a certified letter telling me that there was going to be a hearing. if there was a male cent, -- mail sent, i do not know wcouldt and i could have benefited from the hearing. even when i applied for the appeal, on june 1, june 2 i received the official notice of the decision of the abatement hearing. on june 14, i checked on the status of the hearing. he said he would check with the appeals board and called me back. they told me the meeting would happen today. june 23. i called and said i had not received any documentation by mail. i put my current address on the appeal notice, so i do not know whawhy i am not receiving the m.
i spoke to another woman and she faxed over the documents for today's hearing. july 15, the owner of 228 day street brought by a postcard. july 18, i finally received another letter in the mail. i have already filed a complaint with the u.s. post office. i have been told to go to nancy pelosi's address. i put in a change of address july 5. i should have gotten this in the mail. i do not know what else to say about that. in regard to the timeline, i do not disagree with that, but the work has been completed. i do not think there is any question about the permit.
>> thank you. any questions? >> so you are not contesting that you did the work, since 2002. i appreciate -- >> in 2002, it was my issue because we thought that we were correct. in 2004, we found out that was not the case. >> our department has been putting in a lot of work. >> my question is how much of that -- the way i understood what was said earlier this that
all of this was put into getting this hearing. if there is a partial payment, i do not disagree that i did not get it done by a certain time line, but more hours were put in in the past three month that it now need to happen. my question is, it is it's still going to be $1 and dollars or will it be a portion thereof? -- $1,000 or will it be a portion thereof? i bought the building in 1999. there was an existing structure. i came from a small town in new york, with a different permit process, so it is my fault. we got permission to keep it with the understanding that we had to make a few changes. i bought the property in the september 1999, sold the
property april 2010. >> these violations were on there? >> there were no violations. if you read through the time line, someone in 1975 had cut the property back. when i took care of that structure, -- the property used to be longer -- so it did not take up all the property. because of the way that they cut back the property in the 1970's, when we fixed it, the complaint from the neighbor stated that we filled up 100% of the lot but i was replacing the existing structure. >> you got a permit in 2006 but never finalized the inspection? >> yes, because of money costs. >> any other questions from commissioners before we hear public comment?
>> i have a couple of questions in my head but i think they were perfectly into a -- partially answered. ok, i do have a question. why did you take so long to respond initially? you said you were in violation beginning in 2004. >> to be perfectly honest, this is the first building i have own, so it comes down to the ignorance. i thought i would have time. between 2006 and 2009, it came down to cost. it cost $22,000 to get it up to code. i did not have not sitting around at the time.
>> have no more comments. -- no more questions. public comment? no public comment? staff and a bottle. >> members of the board, i would like you to focus on a couple of things. i want to applaud the honesty of the property owner, knowing that our property -- process can be confusing. on the issue of sending the directors notification, the property owner can make arrangements with the post office but we are obligated, regardless of what the arrangement is, to send the information to who is on file with the assessor, and we post it on the building. the matter what interracial and she may have made with them, we
still would have sent it to that particular address. the amount of time that has accrued on this is not because of the hearing -- it is the time from 2002 to the present. it is not as if we loaded these fees from the last few months. since this is not the current owner, we have an issue. if she does not pay within a certain amount of time, and then we would have to send a notice to the new owner. we would not like to do that. if this is a decision from the board, we will have to take that position. we will need to be reimbursed for the amount of time the amount would be up to the pleasure of the deputy director or director. she would like us to look at that again.
that is what we feel good faith the amount is accrued, and that is a conservative amount, given the time that has occurred. >> questions? >> appellants, you have three minutes. no? ok. commissioners, discussion? >> i think it is clear to me the department acted, as far as our policy and handling these things, it has been since 2002. i would personally like to recommend -- support staff's recommendation that we uphold this to get the fees and defer
it for 15 days to accommodate -- whenever the record is from staff. maybe we could get some input from the other parties so that this is resolvable without filing. >> i appreciate that. the actual condition of the building has been fixed. is there a way where we can mention that we would like these to be recovered but overturn abatement? >> can you hear me? the board could move to say, if the appellant had ex-number of days, then the appellate board
would not support this. if it was a failure to pay the fees -- >> or in this case, we would have to renotice the new owner. perfect. >> just for the record, i will make that payment today so that we do not drag this out. >> 15 days? >> that is what staff requested and this sound like a resolvable situation. that would be my motion. >> before we take a vote, does anyone want to say anything? inspector green? ok, sorry. >> that would be my motion to support staff recommendation
this is public comment relating to the abatement appeals board. >> are there any public members that would like to say something to the abatement appeals board now? >> seeing none can i have a motion for adjournment? we are now adjourned. we will take a short recess and be back with the regular meeting of the building inspections commission.
>> about four years ago, [inaudible] look at how beautiful this was. there is our relationship to the planet. these regions are the wealthiest, the most powerful. that really has impacted the planet. it is almost impossible now to go anywhere and had it really be completely dark. there are very few locations that you can find. that means our relationship to the sky, there is a way where we dominate the sky. we cannot see anything really.
we are blinding ourselves in a way. >> you can look at the images, they are beautiful. when i started four years ago, there was a conversation about environmental issues that was very different. this is not being talked about in the way it is now. . this has just been like an amazing growth. i anticipate the project to be
something that opens a dialogue to public interest in these ideas. so the work is really made to be seen in this environment. it's been show in museum, in gallery, but never in a public setting. and it's kind of ideal for both myself and the works to have this real dialogue with the public not only in san francisco but people coming from all over the world. >> since the dawn of electricity, that light is something that people feel connected to and inspired by. personally, there is space to keep that alive, just finding balance. the key is to find some balance.
commissioner clinch is excused. we have a quorum. the next item is president's announcements. commissioner murphy: we do not have any announcements. >> okay, the next item and is item 3, directors report. >> pam, do you want to give this report? >> good morning. pamela levin, deputy director of financial services. i'm pleased to announce that we are on track to end the year with a positive fund balance. at this point in time, we are still closing the year, departments are still charging us for work orders. we are still doing entry to move monies around in terms of transfers and -- so it is still kind of a preliminary, still
have not calculated deferred credits, but as of now, we are projecting to take our fund balance from $553,000, where we ended last year, by $3.49 million, to the total of $4.3 million. staff will only fund 21.1 days of payroll, and i just wanted to add that i would to some training yesterday with controller's office of emergency management, and one of the things they said was departments need to maintain a positive sign balance in the event of an emergency because that is what we would need to draw on initially. so i think we have done well in controlling our revenues. one of the things is that we have done a really good job in bringing in additional revenue. in terms of the way the revenue is proposed, we would have a
total of $3.95 million before you drop money into the fund balance. as of that, $3.41 million is in the apartment, until, and hotel license fee. we are still under recovering in housing, but those increases that we establish for the 2009- 2010 fiscal year has yielded additional revenue. we are still having some bumping around in terms of the revenue for apartment license fees. there are some entries that the controller's office is making, adjusting some errors that occurred. we're still looking at whether or not all the appeals have been injured, you know, have been submitted. that number could still bump of around before the real and of the fiscal year, which is the accounting and, which is usually
in some timber -- could still bumper round before e d bend bu --mp around before the real end. we still charge revenue service. $1 million of that is for intergovernmental agreements. for instance, we are finding a larger agreement plan review project for us for the exploratory and, the chance they terminal, the chance of a joint authority --transbay terminal, a joint authority. the puc with their new office building, brought in revenue this last year for our planned review. what this means to me is that we did a good job and in terms of revenues of the ongoing height of service, and because $1 million of the increase -- the
$1.3 million increase was for the intergovernmental. we also have had a roughly $679,000 of refunds. this is -- the concept of the refunds is basically, we are paying current year revenue for prior year -- some current year, but prior year plans. so people who have committed -- submitted a plan for inspections and paid s in the prior fiscal year, we're refunding them in the current fiscal year, so, hopefully, this will kind of ratchet down. the refunds are very time consuming for our staff. they, you know, are difficult in their own way, and we are really hoping that that will decrease when the economy starts to get better.
when you exclude a mou's from the overall revenue, we're looking at 1.7% increase. that to me is a very modest increase between how we are originally prepared the budget and how we ended the budget. that is not to say that we were so great in preparing our budget, but at least this year, we did not have -- end up in a negative stance. the big news in expenditures is that we are projected to end up with a savings of 1.2% of the budget, and that is, again, shaving the bottom. it is containing costs, and one of the things this does not take into account, and we need to be cognizant of, is that we will have to be prepared for some of the contracts, the professional
services, and we also have some payments that still have to be made for the year ending june 30. i think overall, it is good news, but i think that we need to continue to be, you know, cognizant that the economy has not made this huge recovery. we are still trying to maintain our own, and i also wanted to let you know that we are filling positions that have been vacated by people that have retired and are trying to get some temporary help. while we were having a previous meeting, i had a discussion with the mayor's office, and they are processing lead divisions will putting through, and we have a very compelling story of why we need these positions. to give you an idea, the general
fund position, the general fund dept. on spending plans. they are really tied in terms of whether or not they can fill positions, but the bears office has stated that we can control our budget -- has faith that we can control our budget and not overextend next year. any questions? >> so we will be hiring back some of the staff laid off? is that the concept? >> we will have to hire back for the permit positions of the full list that exists. if there are no positions on the holdover list, we will have to recruit through the normal recruitment process, but in the meantime, we can fill them with temporary people, which we are trying to take up the whole list, also. great. maybe not our specific employees, but employees from the city that are on the list. great, thank you.
>> the $553,000 that you have in the fund for revenue for payroll -- you said you went to the controller's office are we increasing that? >> what we have this we need to have, if you will, a cushion for unexpected events, including but not limited to what we call catastrophic events such as earthquakes and fires and whatever because of those. that needs to cover the payroll for us, and because, probably, we're not going to have during the recovery, the initial time, is buried levels when you get into emergency recovery, but in
the initial period of time, we will not be having people coming in submitted projects to us. probably in the recovery time, we will, but in the initial, so we have to be able to cover the payroll for that initial time. in a catastrophic event of getting any -- getting the six- something magnitude -- what is it called? anyway, magnitude 6 earthquake or something to that effect, there is some sort of measure -- richter scale. great. if we were into that kind of situation, having, you know, the 553 we ended last year would fund five days. we would have to somehow or
other obtain funding for our people from another source. so the controller's office looks to us to be able to cover our payroll to continue during that time, so when we end the year and add more, based on this plan, we would end at $4.3 million. that still is only 29.1 pace -- paid days. it is the payroll in little over a month and a half. that is not enough. that is the point i'm trying to make, that we need to be prepared for an unexpected type of event. >> our customers are not bringing it in right now. do you have any suggestions on do you have any suggestions on how we might get that fund up?